COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Denmark, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, pluralism in the media, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Luxembourg, 13.7.2022  SWD(2022) 504 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report        Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report          The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2022) 500 final} - {SWD(2022) 501 final} - {SWD(2022) 502 final} - {SWD(2022) 503 final} - {SWD(2022) 505 final} - {SWD(2022) 506 final} - {SWD(2022) 507 final} - {SWD(2022) 508 final} - {SWD(2022) 509 final} - {SWD(2022) 510 final} - {SWD(2022) 511 final} - {SWD(2022) 512 final} - {SWD(2022) 513 final} - {SWD(2022) 514 final} - {SWD(2022) 515 final} - {SWD(2022) 516 final} - {SWD(2022) 517 final} - {SWD(2022) 518 final} - {SWD(2022) 519 final} - {SWD(2022) 520 final} - {SWD(2022) 521 final} - {SWD(2022) 522 final} - {SWD(2022) 523 final} - {SWD(2022) 524 final} - {SWD(2022) 525 final} - {SWD(2022) 526 final} - {SWD(2022) 527 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The level of perceived judicial independence in Denmark continues to be very high. Gaps in 
the  digitalisation  of  the  judiciary  remain,  notably  related  to  digital  solutions  to  initiate  and 
follow  administrative  and  criminal  proceedings.  The  limited  expenditure  on  the  justice 
system as a percentage of the GDP and low number of judges remains a long-term challenge, 
in  particular  in  view  of  ensuring  efficient  case-handling.  Discussions  on  a  multiannual 
budgetary framework for the period 2023-2026 are ongoing. A new law on court fees came 
into force, which aims to make the fees more understandable and to incentivise settlements. 
The  justice  system  overall  remains  efficient  and  legislation  to  speed-up  the  handling  of 
criminal  cases  was  adopted.  However,  the  average  case-handling  times  for  district  courts 
have increased in both civil and criminal cases in 2021.  

Denmark  is  perceived  as  the  least  corrupt  country  in  the  EU  and  the  world.  The  anti-
corruption  system  continues  to  be  based  to  a  large  extent  on  general  rules  on  ethics  and 
integrity, social norms and public scrutiny with a high degree of trust in well-functioning of 
the  public  administration.  A  new  national  investigative  unit  was  established  for  a  more 
efficient approach to serious crime including complex corruption cases. New legislation was 
introduced to strengthen the protection of whistleblowers along with new reporting channels. 
Additional  measures  on  political  party  financing  to  address  multiple  donations  were 
announced  by  the  Government  though  no  concrete  roadmap  for  their  adoption  is  planned. 
Challenges regarding the implementation of international recommendations in relation to the 
anti-corruption framework remain unaddressed, as there are no plans to address the absence 
of rules on ‘revolving doors’ for ministers and on lobbying, and to ensure adequate control of 
asset declarations submitted by persons entrusted with top executive functions. 

Initiatives to strengthen the media self-regulatory system in Denmark through the creation of 
a media ombudsperson and to update the current framework for media responsibility to fit the 
digital  media  reality  are  currently  ongoing.  The  independence  of  the  two  Danish  public 
service broadcasters is safeguarded by secondary legislation. Political negotiations have been 
conducted  regarding  the  possible  amendment  of  the  Access  to  Public  Administrative 
Documents Act, which restricts the right to access information in some cases, but there are no 
concrete  plans  for  reforms  yet.  Organisations  representing  Danish  journalists,  media  and 
cultural stakeholders, together with the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Culture, have 
published  a  national  action  plan  to  further  strengthen  the  already  robust  framework  for  the 
safety  of  journalists.  The  Criminal  Code  has  been  amended  to  allow  stricter  sentences  for 
threats to freedom of expression.  

A  number  of  developments  related  to  checks  and  balances  could  be  observed  in  Denmark. 
The  first  commission  of  scrutiny,  following  this  newly  established  system  of  control, 
examined the decision on culling of mink and submitted its report to a Parliament committee 
on  30  June  2022.  The  Court  of  Impeachment,  responsible  for  deciding  on  cases  involving 
breaches  of  ministerial  responsibility,  issued  a  ruling  in  2021.  In  addition,  the  Government 
has  reviewed  the  use  of  the  Epidemic  Act  and  invited  public  comments.  The  guidelines  of 
Parliament’s  Standing  Orders  Committee  on  fast-track  procedures  have  been  overall 
respected notwithstanding an increase in legislative activity in 2021. The civil society space 
remains open and the framework for public participation remains robust.  

1 

 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

It is recommended to Denmark to: 

  Ensure  adequate  human  and  financial  resources  for  the  justice  system  in  the  next 
multiannual  framework,  taking  into  account  European  standards  on  resources  for  the 
justice system. 

 

  Adopt new legislation on political party financing that will address the issue of multiple 
and anonymous donations and introduce sanctions for breaching the rules on the political 
parties framework.  
Introduce rules on ‘revolving doors’ for ministers and on lobbying, and ensure adequate 
control of asset declarations submitted by persons entrusted with top executive functions. 
  Continue the process geared at reforming the Access to Public Administrative Documents 
Act  in  order  to  strengthen  the  right  to  access  documents,  in  particular  by  limiting  the 
grounds for rejection of  disclosure requests, taking into account  the European standards 
on access to official documents.  

2 

 
 
 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The  Danish  justice  system  consists  of  24  district  courts,  two  high  courts  (courts  of  appeal) 
and  a  Supreme  Court,  as  well  as  two  specialised  courts1.  The  independent  National  Court 
Administration  is  in  charge  of  the  administration  and  development  of  the  courts,  which 
includes  allocation  of  courts’  budgets  and  management  of  buildings  and  systems  related  to 
information  and  communications  technology.  The  independent  Judicial  Appointments 
Council2  makes  non-binding  proposals  for  the  appointment  of  judges  to  the  Ministry  of 
Justice, who then proposes them for formal appointment by the executive (the Queen)3. Only 
one judge is proposed per vacancy by the Appointments Council. There have been no cases 
where the executive did not follow the proposal of the Appointments Council4. Disciplinary 
measures for judges can be issued by Court Presidents or the Special Court of Indictment and 
Revision5. The prosecution service is an autonomous institution acting under the supervision 
of the Ministry of Justice and led by a Prosecutor General6. The Bar and Law Society is the 
independent body governing the legal profession and ensuring its independence7. 

Independence  

The level of perceived judicial independence in Denmark continues to be very high both 
among the general public and companies. Overall, 84% of the general population and 87% 
of companies perceived the level of independence of courts and judges to be ‘fairly or very 
good’  in  20228.  According  to  data  in  the  2022  EU  Justice  Scoreboard,  the  level  remains 
consistently  very  high  for  both  the  general  public  and  companies  since  2016.  Both  figures 
have increased in comparison to 2021 (75% for the general public and 83% for companies). 
However,  the  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  among  the  general  public  is  slightly 
lower in comparison with 2016 (88%). 

1   The  Maritime  and  Commercial  Court  and  the  Land  Registration  Court.  CEPEJ  (2021),  Study  on  the 

functioning of the judicial systems in the EU Member States.  

2   Members  are  appointed  by  the  Minister  of  Justice  and  consist  of  one  Supreme  Court  and  one  High  Court 
judge  proposed  by  the  respective  courts,  one  District  Court  judge  proposed  by  the  Danish  Association  of 
Judges,  one  lawyer  proposed  by  the  Bar  and  Law  Society  and  two  representatives  of  the  general  public 
proposed by Local Government Denmark and the Danish Adult Education Association. 

3   With  the  exception  of  the  President  of  the  Supreme  Court,  who  is  selected  and  appointed  directly  by  the 
Supreme Court according to an internal procedure. In addition, as regards members of the Supreme Court, 
the law sets out a special procedure under which the candidate chosen by the appointments board is vetted by 
judges of the Supreme Court before the appointment is confirmed.  

4   For transparency, the Judicial Appointments Council issues a press release when making their proposal. 
5   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 2.  
6   The  Prosecutor  General  is  appointed  by  the  executive  (formally  the  Queen)  on  recommendation  of  the 
Minister of Justice following approval of the Governments’ Recruitment Board and can be dismissed on a 
motivated  recommendation  of  the  Minister  of  Justice  (in  the  latter  case  the  recommendation  is  submitted 
directly to the Queen). The Minister of Justice can issue instructions to prosecutors in individual cases, with 
a  number  of  safeguards  applicable  (2020  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  of 
situation in Denmark, p. 3).  

7   Administration of Justice Act, Chapter 15.  
8   Figures 50 and 52, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. The level of perceived judicial independence is categorised 
as  follows:  very  low  (below  30%  of  respondents  perceive  judicial  independence  as  fairly  good  and  very 
good); low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 

3 

 
                                                 
Quality  

Gaps in the digitalisation of the judiciary remain, notably related to digital solutions to 
initate and follow administrative and criminal proceedings. The shortcomings as regards 
digitalisation  identified  in  the  2020  and  2021  Rule  of  Law  Reports9  have  remained  largely 
unchanged. While digital communication tools for courts and the prosecution service are in 
place10, procedural rules for digital tools are only partly in place for civil, administrative and 
criminal proceedings11 and digital solutions to initate and follow administrative and criminal 
proceedings  remain  very  limited12.  While  gaps  still  remain  on  arrangements  for  machine-
readability  of  judgments13,  the  introduction  of  an  online  database  for  judgments  by  the 
National  Court  Administration  as  of  6  January  2022  is  an  improvement14.  In  addition,  the 
National  Courts  Administration  has  received  funding  for  a  project  to  develop  a  new  IT 
system  for  processing  criminal  and  probate  cases15.  Nevertheless,  the  COVID-19  pandemic 
has  accentuated  the  existing  gaps  concerning  the  digitalisation  of  justice,  which  remains  a 
challenge.  

The  resource  situation  and  the  low  number  of  judges  remains  a  challenge.  The 
expenditure on the justice system as a percentage of GDP remains very low in Denmark (at 
0.17% of GDP)16 as does the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants (at 6.6 per 100 000 
inhabitants)17, which presents a long-term challenge18. The budgetary resources allocated to 
the  Danish  courts  in  the  annual  budget  for  2022  are  approximately  EUR  257.02  million 
(DKK 1 911.5 million), which remains stable compared to 202119. In spite of some efficiency 
gains  in  202020,  the  Danish  courts  have  experienced  an  increase  of  pending  cases  and  case 
processing  times  in  the  past  years,  notably  on  civil  and  criminal  cases21,  which,  in  spite  of 

9   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 4.  
10   Figures 44-45, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
11   Figure 42, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
12   Figures 46-47, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
13   Figure 49, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
14   The  database  presently  contains  a  small  number  of  recent  judgments,  but  it  will  be  gradually  extended  to 
include more as new judgments are delivered, integration with the IT systems of the courts is improved and 
new systems for digitising the decisions of the courts are implemented. The judgments are pseudonymised. 
National Courts Administration (2022), Judgments database is open.  

15   The budget for the project is approximately EUR 81.25 million (DKK 604.6 million). The objective of the 
new IT system is to replace the outdated IT-systems used by the courts with a more user-friendly, effective 
and future-proof solution. The project will be rolled out in six stages, whereby the first project stage will be a 
probate portal that will support  the registration of claims concerning the administration of the estate of the 
deceased, to be rolled out in November 2022 and the last stage in 2026. The Danish district courts deal with 
about 300 000 criminal and probate cases a year. National Courts Administration (2021), Digitisation of new 
criminal and probate system under way. 
16   Figure 35, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
17   Figure 36, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
18   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 4 and 2021  Rule of 

Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 3.  

19   In 2021, the total financial resources for the judiciary have increased to approximately  EUR 259.59 million 
(DKK 1 931.8 million) compared to approximately EUR 255.79 million (DKK 1 903.5 million) in 2020. In 
2021, there were 2 078 full-time employees, including 685 judges and other legal advisers, and 1 202 office 
staff (in 2020, the figures were 680 and 1 181 respectively). Input from Denmark for the 2022 Rule of Law 
Report, p. 9-10 and written contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit. 

20   As noted in the ‘Efficiency’ section below. 
21   The  COVID-19  pandemic  is  not  the  only  reason  for  the  increase  in  pending  cases.  The  National  Court 
Administration estimates that the activity in criminal cases at the district courts would have been roughly at 
the  same  level as  in 2019  without the  COVID-19 cancellations and other constraints on  case  management 

4 

 
                                                 
 
additional  financial  allocations  in  2021  and  202222,  may  require  a  long-term  increase  in 
resources in order to address them, in particular for the creation of new posts for judges, as 
already  pointed  out  by  stakeholders  in  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report23.  In  this  context,  the 
Danish  Association  of Judges  has emphasised that  a number of laws  in  the past  years have 
increased  the  burdens  on  courts  and  prolonged  their  disposition  times,  notably  in  criminal 
cases,  while  no  additional  longer-term  human  or  financial  resources  have  been  allocated  to 
the courts; this has led to an increase in caseload and length of procedures24. The multiannual 
budgetary  framework  for  the  Danish  courts  for  the  period  2023-2026  is  currently  being 
discussed.  These  discussions  normally  take  place  at  an  administrative  level  between  the 
National  Courts  Administration,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  the  Ministry  of  Finance25.  In  a 
departure from previously established practices, however, it has recently been suggested that 
in  light  of  the  challenges  faced  these  discussion  should  be  brought  up  to  the  political  level 
and  involve  exchanges  among  parties  in  Parliament  (Folketing)26.  According  to  Council  of 
Europe  recommendations,  each  State  should  allocate  adequate  resources,  facilities  and 
equipment  to  the  courts  to  enable  them  to  function  in  accordance  with  the  standards  laid 
down  in  Article  6  of  the  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  Human  Rights  and  Fundamental 
Freedoms and to enable judges to work efficiently27. 

A  new  law  on  court  fees  came  into  force  which  aims  to  make  the  fees  more 
understandable and to incentivise settlements. On 1 October 2021, the new Court Fees Act 
came into force28. It aims to simplify the rules on court fees29 and to incentivise settlements, 
by  allowing  the  parties  a  longer  period  to  reach  a  settlement,  under  which  the  plaintiff  or 
appelant can be reimbursed the court fees30. While the stakeholders generally welcomed the 

due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the last five years, district courts have received significantly more of the 
serious  criminal  cases  than  in  the  previous  five  years;  at  the  same  time,  cases  have  also  become  more 
complex and time-consuming. National Court Administration (2022), Even longer processing times in 2021. 
National Courts Administration (2022), Graph of average case processing time in selected criminal cases in 
district  courts  2012-2021.  National  Court  Administration  (2022),  Key  figures  on  case  turnover  and 
processing times, pp. 4-5 and 10. 

22   The  Government  allocated  to  Danish  courts  additional  funding  to  tackle  the  caseload  of  criminal  cases  in 
June  2021  (approximately  EUR  3.36  million  or  DKK  25  million)  and  for  2022  (approximately  EUR  6.39 
million  or  DKK  47.5  million).  National  Courts  Administration  (2022),  Annual  report  2021  has  been 
published. In addition, the Government has allocated EUR 1.75 million (DKK 13 million) per year for the 
period of 2021-23 to address the caseload impact of the COVID-19 pandemic; written contribution from the 
Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit. 

23   See 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 3.  
24   The Danish Association of Judges has regularly referred to the issue of resources and impact on efficiency in 
its replies on legislative proposals, see for example the  statements in replies to public consultations on the 
draft law on police activities or the draft law amending the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure 
and the Road Traffic Act (from 14 March 2022 and 21 September 2021, respectively).  The Danish Bar and 
Law Society has also regularly pointed out that there is a shortage of resources to handle cases and that as a 
result waiting times have increased dramatically, commentary in Berlingske Tidende (2022), Commentary: 
Long waiting times must not undermine confidence in the justice system (and republished by the Danish Bar 
and Law Society.  

25   Altinget (2022), ‘Parties to negotiate on court finances: “It is not a law of nature that the agreement must be 

administrative’. 

26   Ibid.  
27   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, paragraph 33. 
28   The Law on Court Fees, Law Nr. 425 of 16 March 2021.  
29   A fee of approximately EUR 100 or 200 (DKK 750 or DKK 1 500) applies depending on the value of the 

court case. Input from Denmark for the 2022 Rule of Law report, p. 8. 

30   Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit.  

5 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
objective of the proposal, they considered it too early to assess its impact31. As noted in the 
2021 Rule of Law Report, the Ministry of Justice set up a pre-legislative committee to review 
the existing legal aid system in April 202032. The work of the pre-legislative committee was 
delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but it resumed its work in September 2021 and is 
expected to present its results by 31 August 202333.  

Efficiency 

The  justice  system  overall  remains  efficient,  but  the  average  case  handling  time  for 
district  courts  has  increased  in  both  civil  and  criminal  cases  in  2021.  The  number  of 
incoming civil, commercial, administrative and other cases at first instance in 2020 remains 
very  high  (47.5  cases  per  100 000  inhabitants  compared  to  49.3  cases  in  2019)34  with 
simultaneously one of the lowest number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants as compared to 
other  Member  States35.  While  the  clearance  rate  for  civil,  commercial,  administrative  and 
other cases has remained stable (100.6% in 2019 compared to 100.8% in 2020), the rate for 
litigious civil and commercial cases has improved markedly in 2020 (111.1%, up from 91.8% 
in 2019)36 and the estimated time to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases has slightly 
decreased on  average  at  all instances in  2020 compared to  2019 (from  222 to  190 days for 
first instance cases)37. However, according to National Courts Administration’s data for 2021, 
the  average  case  handling  time  for  district  courts  has  increased  in  both  civil  and  criminal 
cases,  and  the  pending  criminal  cases  at  the  end  of  2021  increased  by  16%  in  spite  of  a 
decrease of incoming criminal cases by 11%38. 

The Government has adopted legislation to speed up the handling of criminal cases in 
court,  which  touches  upon  the  right  to  choose  a  lawyer  freely.  The  Government  is 
undertaking  efforts  to  improve  the  efficiency  of  the  justice  system  in  relation  to  the 
processing of criminal cases, considering that processing times for criminal cases is seeing an 
increasing trend39. Since  2018, the Act  on Administration of Justice includes a rule that, in 
criminal  cases  related  to  certain  types  of  offences,  defendants  cannot  choose  a  certain 
attorney,  if  their  request  of  attorney  will  result  in  a  delay  of  the  proceedings;  this  rule  has 
been  overall  expanded  to  cases  related  to  additional  types  of  criminal  offences  (dangerous 
crimes  committed  against  another  individual)  with  an  amendment  from  December  202140. 
According  to  the  Government,  this  is  applicable  in  cases  where  the  criminal  proceedings 
foreseen  by  law  would  be  delayed  by  more  than  two  or  three  weeks;  the  refusal  can  be 

31   Information received  from the National Courts Administration and the  Danish Bar and Law Society in the 

context of the country visit. 

32   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 3. 
33   Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Denmark.  
34   Figure  3,  2022  EU  Justice  Scoreboard. This  category  includes  all  civil  and  commercial  litigious  and  non-
litigious cases, non-litigious land and business registry cases, other registry cases, other non-litigious cases, 
administrative law cases and other non-criminal cases. 

35   Figure 36, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
36   Figures 11 and 12, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
37   Figure 7, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. No separate data on administrative cases is available.  
38   National Court Administration (2022), Key figures on case turnover and processing times, p. 2.  
39   National  Court  Administration  (2022),  Even  longer  processing  times 

in  2021,  National  Courts 
Administration  (2022),  Graph  of  average  case  processing  time  in  selected  criminal  cases  in  district  courts 
2012-2021, and information received from the National Court Administration during the country visit. 

40   While  some  types  of  criminal  offences  are  no  longer  covered  by  that  provision,  a  number  of  criminal 
offences  have  been  added  since  December  2021.  Written  contribution  from  the  Ministry  of  Justice  in  the 
context of the country visit.  

6 

 
                                                 
appealed  to  the  Special  Court  of  Indictment  and  Revision41.  Some  stakeholders42  have 
expressed  caution  about  a  possible  impact  on  the  defendants’  rights  to  freely  choose  an 
attorney43.  In addition,  to  streamline the processing of  criminal  cases, the  Government  also 
tabled a proposal in Parliament in April 202244. Some stakeholders have expressed criticism 
on some elements of the law, such as the possibility for the police under certain conditions to 
have access to information of the whereabouts of a suspect or another person without a court 
order45. The prioritisation of certain  criminal cases46 in Danish  courts is to the detriment of 
other cases, including civil cases47.  

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

The Danish anti-corruption system is to  a large extent based on general rules on ethics and 
integrity  as  well  as  social  norms  and  public  scrutiny.  Various  authorities  are  involved  in 
preventing corruption, promoting good administrative practice and compliance with the legal 
framework.  This  includes  amongst  others  the  National  Audit  Office.  The  Employee  and 
Competence Agency and the Prime Minister’s Office have responsibilities with regard to the 
promotion  of  integrity  among  civil  servants  and  ministers.  The  Ministry  of  Justice  ensures 

41   The  defendant  can  appeal  the  court’s  decision  to  deny  the  requested  attorney  to  the  Special  Court  of 
Indictment and Revision within a week after the decision. Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice 
in the context of the country visit. 

42   In the public consultation on the proposal, the Danish Bar and Law Society has noted that a free choice of 
attorney is one of several pillars of confidence in the process that can lead to serious sanctions and that this 
must be borne in mind when limiting the choice of defence. Danish Bar and Law Society (2021),  Response 
to the consultation on draft law amending the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Road 
Traffic Act. The Danish Human Rights Institute referred to its consultation response to the 2018 amendment 
that introduced this rule, in which it expressed the view that the starting point should be that the defendant 
has the right to choose their attorney and that refusal on the grounds of speeding up the criminal proceedings 
should be exceptional. Danish Institute for Human Rights (2021),  Response to public consultation on draft 
law  amending  the  Criminal  Code,  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  and  the  Road  Traffic  Act.  The  Danish 
Association of Judges considered that the amendment in practice maintains a status quo and reflects a change 
in priority of cases to be dealt with first and does not give rise to problems in practice. Written information 
received from the Danish Association of Judges in the context of the country visit to Denmark. 

43   According  to  Article  6§  3(c)  of  the  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  Human  Rights  and  Fundamental 
Freedoms everyone charged with a criminal offence has the minimum right to defend himself in person or 
through legal assistance of his own choosing. The European Court of Human Rights has held that this right 
cannot be considered to be absolute and, consequently the national courts may override that person's choice 
when there are relevant and sufficient  grounds  for holding  that this  is  necessary in the interests of justice. 
The  existence  of  such  grounds  has  to  be  assessed  in  light  of  the  particular  circumstances  of  each  case. 
Judgment  of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  of  20  October  2015,  Dvorski  v.  Croatia,  25703/11, 
paragraphs 79-82 and the case-law cited therein. 

44   Proposal L 182: Proposal for an Act amending the Penal Code, the Code of Judicial  Procedure and various 
other laws (Streamlining the criminal case chain and the tribunal process, etc. in the Juvenile Delinquency 
Board,  increased  access  to  disclosure  and  recording  of  photos,  improving  police  opportunities  for 
investigation,  etc.)  (L  182:  Forslag  til  lov  om  ændring  af  straffeloven,  retsplejeloven  og  forskellige  andre 
love  (Effektivisering  af  straffesagskæden  og  nævnsprocessen  m.v.  i  Ungdomskriminalitetsnævnet,  øget 
adgang  til  videregivelse  og  optagelse  af  fotos,  forbedring  af  politiets  muligheder  for  efterforskning  m.v.)) 
and written contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit. 

45   See notably the responses to the public consultation on the draft law amending the Penal Code, the Code of 
Judicial  Procedure  and  various  other  laws  by  the  Danish  Association  of  Judges  (2022)  and  the  Danish 
Institute of Human Rights (2022), p. 16-18. 

46   The  so-called VVV-cases related to violence,  weapons and rape have a priority in the judicial system and 

need to be dealt with within 30 days.  

47   See opinion shared by the Danish Bar and Law Society  in Berlingske Tidende (2022), Commentary:  Long 

waiting times must not undermine confidence in the justice system. 

7 

 
                                                 
cooperation  between  national  authorities  in  elaborating  anti-corruption  measures48.  As  of  1 
January  2022,  the  State  Prosecutor  for  Serious  Economic  and  International  Crime  (SØIK) 
was replaced by two entities: the National Special Crime Unit (SCU) and the State Prosecutor 
for Special Crime (SPSCU). Denmark does not have a dedicated anti-corruption strategy nor 
a specialised agency dealing with corruption issues. 

The perception among  experts and the business  community is  that Denmark  is  one of 
the  least  corrupt  countries  in  the  world.  In  the  2021  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  by 
Transparency  International,  Denmark  scores  88/100  and  ranks  first  in  the  European  Union 
and globally49. This perception has been stable over the past five  years50. The 2022 Special 
Eurobarometer on Corruption shows that 16% of respondents consider corruption widespread 
in  their  country  (EU  average  68%)  and  5%  of  respondents  feel  personally  affected  by 
corruption in their daily lives (EU average 24%)51. As regards businesses, 18% of companies 
consider  that  corruption  is  widespread  (EU  average  63%)  and  7%  consider  that  that 
corruption  is  a  problem  when  doing  business  (EU  average  34%)52.  Furthermore,  28%  of 
respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter people from  corrupt 
practices  (EU  average  34%)53,  while  50%  of  companies  believe  that  people  and  businesses 
caught for bribing a senior official are appropriately punished (EU average 29%)54. 

A  reform  to  set  up  a  new  national  investigative  unit  responsible  for  serious  crimes, 
including complex corruption-related cases, has been implemented. The National Special 
Crime Unit (SCU) as well as the State Prosecutor for Special Crime Unit55 (SPSCU) replaced 
as  of  1  January  2022  the  State  Prosecutor  for  Serious  Economic  and  International  Crime 
(SØIK)56. As a result, SCU has both investigative and prosecution competences and SPSCU, 
among others, supervises SCU’s complex criminal proceedings, and conducts legality control 
and  appeals  before  the  high  courts.  Their  main  focus  remains  the  same  as  that  of  their 

48   While  the  Ministry  of  Justice  has  set  up  an  anti-corruption  forum  for  internal  coordination,  it  has  not  met 
since 2015 and coordination is carried out through ad-hoc written consultations. Written contribution from 
the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit. 

49   Transparency  International  (2022),  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  2021,  pp.  2-3.  The  level  of  perceived 
corruption  is  categorised  as  follows:  low  (the  perception  among  experts  and  business  executives  of  public 
sector  corruption  scores  above  79);  relatively  low  (scores  between  79-60),  relatively  high  (scores  between 
59-50), high (scores below 50). 

50   In 2017 the score was 88, while, in 2021, the score is 88. The score significantly increases/decreases when it 
changes  more  than  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5  points);  is  relatively  stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

51   Special  Eurobarometer  523  (2022).  The  Eurobarometer  data  on  citizens’  corruption  perception  and 
experience is updated every second year. The previous data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020). 
52   Flash  Eurobarometer  507  (2022).  The  Eurobarometer  data  on  business  attitudes  towards  corruption  as  is 

updated every second year. The previous data set is the Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

53   Special Eurobarometer 523 (2022).  
54   Flash Eurobarometer 507 (2022).  
55   Danish  Government  (2020),  Reflection  Paper  for  an  Agreement  on  the  finances  of  the  Police  and 
Prosecutor’s  Office  2021-2024  Ministry  of  Justice,  pp.  17-21;  Information  received  by  the  Prosecution 
Service in the context of the country visit to Denmark.  

56   Law 2601 of 28 December 2021. As noted in the Rule of Law Report 2021, the objective of the reform was 
to bring under the same roof investigators and prosecutors, who will be better able to follow serious crime 
cases  all  the  way  from  district  level  to  appeal,  with  the  aim  of  ensuring  a  more  efficient  and  coordinated 
approach regarding serious crime, including complex cases of corruption. 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country 
Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 6. 

8 

 
                                                 
predecessor  institution,  namely  serious  crime  cases,  including  complex  corruption-related 
cases57.  

Complex cases involving bribery are addressed effectively while more general reporting 
of  corruption  cases  is  lacking.  The  Danish  authorities  consider  that  the  existing  anti-
corruption  system  based  mainly  on  general  rules  on  ethics  and  integrity,  social  norms  and 
public  scrutiny  works  well  and  does  not  require  a  dedicated  anti-corruption  strategy58.  In 
2021,  the  investigation  and  prosecution  for  those  cases  that  was  carried  out  by  the  State 
Prosecutor  for  Serious  Economic  and  International  Crime  (SØIK)59  were  limited  to  bribery 
cases.  Authorities  continue  to  report  that  resources  available  and  training  for  officials  are 
adequate  to  fulfil  the  tasks  assigned  to  them60.  At  the  same  time,  the  overall  number  of 
investigations and the enforcement of corruption-related cases are difficult to measure within 
the current system of processing data (case-handling system)61.  

There  are  no  plans  to  address  the  outstanding  shortcomings  related  to  the  integrity 
framework for ministers and top executive functions. As reported in the 2021 Rule of Law 
Report62,  public  servants63  are  subject  to  a  Code  of  Conduct  in  the  Public  Sector64,  which 
refers to the criminal law provisions and obligations under the Public Administration Act65. 
As regards ministers66 and top executives, there are currently no plans67 to address the issue 
previously highlighted by GRECO, namely that declarations on assets submitted by persons 
entrusted with top executive functions need to be subject to substantive control68. According 
to  the  Danish  authorities  the  system  works  well  and  further  strengthening  of  the  rules  in 

57   Written contribution from the Employee and Competence Agency in the context of the country visit. 
58   Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit. 
59   There were six judgments passed in 2021 (compared to 18 in 2020) based on the Criminal Code section 122 
(active bribery),  two  judgments passed in 2021 (compared to 14 in 2020) based on Criminal Code section 
144 (passive bribery), five judgments passed in 2021 (compared to one in 2020) based on the Criminal Code 
section 299 (private sector bribery).  

60   Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Denmark. 
61   According to the Danish authorities, the existing IT system consists of a case-handling system which does 
not process nor identify statistics on corruption-related cases. Nevertheless, the Danish authorities were able 
to  provide  the  statistics  related  to  bribery  under  sections  122  and  144 of  the  Danish  Criminal  Code,  as  in 
footnote 59 above. 

62   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, pp. 6-7. 
63   Public Servants in Denmark include special advisers and top-level civil servants. 2021 Rule of Law Report, 

Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 6. 

64   Agency for modernisation (2017), Code of conduct in the public sector; 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country 

Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 6. 

65   Public Administration Act, Chapter 2, Sections 3-6. For the areas not covered by the public administration 
act, a general fundamental legal principle of impartiality applies; Agency for modernisation (2017), Code of 
conduct in the public sector; GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, p. 15. 

66   New ministers are given a ministerial handbook which is updated regularly and contains the main applicable 
rules and guidelines on integrity-related matters regarding governmental work including rules on secondary 
employment, gifts and other benefits and conflicts of interests. 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter 
on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Denmark,  p.  6.  However,  ministers  have  legal  and  political  responsibility 
towards Parliament including duties on truthfulness, confidentiality, disqualification or conflicts of interest. 
The  disregard  of  these  rules  can  be  sanctioned  in  some  instances  as  stated  in  Section  5  of  the  Ministerial 
Accountability  Act  of  1964. Application  of  this  provision  is  very  rare.  2021  Rule  of  Law  report,  Country 
Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 7. 

67   Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Denmark. 
68   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Compliance Report, recommendation vii, pp. 9-10.  

9 

 
                                                 
question  is  not  necessary69.  Overall,  due  to  the  lack  of  a  monitoring  and  verification 
mechanism,  the  efficacy  of  the  mentioned  rules  is  difficult  to  evaluate.  There  are  no  plans 
either  to  address  the  GRECO  recommendations70  on  the  lack  of  binding  rules  on  asset 
declarations, and the exclusion of special advisers71. Moreover, the authorities report no plans 
either  to  adopt  legislation  establishing  a  ‘revolving  doors’  policy  for  ministers72  despite 
GRECO’s  views  that  the  current  framework  poses  integrity  risks73  and  despite  a  public 
debate on this issue74.  

There  are  no  plans  to  regulate  contacts  between  decision-makers  and  lobbyists.  As 
already noted in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, interest representatives have no duty to report 
on their activities75. There are currently no plans to adopt rules on lobbying as the authorities 
do not consider strengthening of the rules necessary76. According to GRECO, introduction of 
rules  and  guidance  on  lobbying  is  recommended  with  regard  to  contacts  between  persons 
entrusted  with  top  executive  functions  and  lobbyists.  Overall,  GRECO  also  underlined  the 
need  to  increase  the  transparency  of  contacts  and  subject  matters  concerning  lobbying  of 
persons entrusted with top executive functions77.  

Additional measures  on political party financing were announced by the Government, 
though no concrete roadmap for their adoption is foreseen. Due to the current debate78 on 
the  shortcomings  in  the  rules  on  transparency  of  political  party  financing79,  criminal  law 
measures  are  planned  to  address  situations  of  several  donations  below  the  threshold 
(approximately EUR 3 000 in 2022), which add up to a sum above the threshold, or through 
different  companies  owned  fully  or  partially  by  the  same  person,  which  partly  addresses 
international recommendations80. It is not clear at this stage if the new law would also address 

69   The declarations of ministers are published on the website of the Prime Minister’s Office and thereby subject 
to scrutiny by Parliament, the press and the public at large, and ministers bear political responsibility for this 
information, as mentioned above, see GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Compliance Report, pp. 9-10. 

70   GRECO recommends (i) enshrining in regulation or legislation an obligation for members of the government 
to publicly declare their assets, income and financial interests; (ii) that quantitative data on income as well as 
data on assets and significant liabilities is included in the financial declarations; and (iii) that it be considered 
to oblige special advisers to declare their financial interests publicly on a regular basis as well. GRECO Fifth 
Evaluation Round – Compliance Report, pp. 8-9. 

71   Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit  to Denmark. Denmark 
considers  that  the  non-binding  nature  and  the  lack  of  quantitative  data  strikes  a  fair  balance  between 
transparency  and  the  privacy  of  the  ministers,  and  that  special  advisers  have  a  duty  to  report  potential 
conflicts  of  interest  to  the  permanent  secretary  of  their  ministry  or  their  manager,  see  GRECO  Fifth 
Evaluation Round – Compliance Report, recommendation viii, pp. 9-10. 

72   Written contribution from the Employee and Competence Agency in the context of the country visit. 
73   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, p. 8. 
74  Altinget  (2022),  Hækkerup's  shift  calls  for  democratic  self-examination,  Altinget  (2022),  Hækkerup's  exit 
reignites  debate  over  conflict  of  interest:  Here  are  the  top  politicians  who  took  the  revolving  door  before 
him, TV 2 (2022), That's why former ministers are so attractive to business.  

75   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, pp. 7-8.  
76   Information  received  from  the  Employee  and  Competence  Agency  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to 

Denmark. 

77  GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round on Denmark – Compliance Report, pp. 7-8. 
78   Politiken (2021), Broad majority in parliament wants to tighten rules and ban Britt Bager-finten.  
79   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 8; Politiken (2022), 
The Liberal Party kept recipients of party support secret: ‘If the rest of us filled out forms from Tax or other 
authorities in the same way, we would not get away with it’. 

80   Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit. 

10 

 
                                                 
other outstanding issues such as anonymous donations to political parties and the introduction 
of sanctions for breaching the rules that are considered a concern by GRECO81.  

New  legislation  was  adopted  to  strengthen  the  protection  of  whistleblowers  and  new 
reporting  channels  were  created.  The  Danish  Whistleblower  Act  was  adopted  by  the 
Parliament  on  24  June  202182  and  entered  into  force  on  17  December  2021,  aiming  to 
transpose the EU Whistleblowers Directive83. The Act covers serious breaches of legislation, 
including both national and EU law. A general external reporting channel in the Danish Data 
Protection Agency has been established84. Since 17 December 2021, the Agency received 45 
reports  on  whistleblowing85.  Additional  funds  were  granted  to  the  Agency  to  ensure  its 
capacity to operate this channel86. Moreover, two special external reporting channels for the 
Danish  Security and  Intelligence Service  and the  Danish  Defence  Intelligence Service have 
been  established87.  The  establishment  of  the  special  external  reporting  channels  does  not 
affect  the  whistleblower’s  right  to  use  the  general  external  reporting  channel  established  in 
the  Danish  Data  Protection  Agency,  however,  whistleblowers  from  the  services  are 
encouraged  to  use  the  external  channels  established  in  the  ministries88.  To  ensure  correct 
implementation, the Danish Ministry of Justice has published guidance notes for private and 
public organisations and whistleblowers89.  

No specific monitoring for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the measures such 
as  in  the  area  of  public  procurement  has  been  put  in  place.  The  impact  of  the  new 
provision  added  to  the  Criminal  Code  in  April  2020,  doubling  the  penalty  for  a  number  of 
crimes related to measures adopted as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic90, has not  yet 
been assessed. In parallel, the necessity for a close monitoring of rules, in particular related to 
public procurement implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic,  was the object  of public 
debate91. The National Special Crime Unit received more than 450 cases of suspected fraud 
with  regard  to  measures  adopted  as  a  response  to  the  pandemic92.  In  parallel,  the  National 
Audit  Office  is  currently  conducting  audits  regarding  implementation  of  measures 
implemented in 2021 and as a follow-up to the audits carried out in 202093. 

81   GRECO Third Evaluation Round – Addendum to the second compliance report on Denmark. 
82   Law Nr 1436 from 29 June 2021 on the protection of whistleblowers.  
83   Directive  (EU)  2019/1937  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  October  2019  on  the 

protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. 

84   Website  of  the  whistleblower  channel  in  the  Danish  Data  Protection  Agency  available  in  English, 

https://whistleblower.dk/english. 

85   Information  received  from  the  Ministry  of  Justice  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Denmark; 

Datatilsynet (2022), Whistle-blowing at half a year.  

86   Input from Denmark for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 14. 
87   This  is  done  in  order  to  ensure  correct  handling  of  reports  concerning  the  intelligence  services,  which  is 
likely  to  include  confidential  information.  The  two  channels  are  placed  in  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  the 
Ministry of Defence respectively.  

88   Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit. 
89   Ministry of Justice (2021), Whistleblowing. 
90   See  also  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Denmark,  p.  9. 
Stakeholders  such  as  the  Danish  Association  of  Judges  have  criticized  this  as  it  removes  discretion  for 
judges to consider individual circumstances of a case.  

91   Politiken  (2022),  'It's  completely,  completely  wrong  what's  going  on':  2  billion  taxpayer  kroner  worth  of 

rapid tests bought without a tender. 

92   Written contribution from the Danish Police in the context of the country visit. 
93   Information received from the National Audit Office in the context of the country visit to Denmark. 

11 

 
                                                 
III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM 

The  Constitution  provides  the  overall  framework  for  the  protection  of  the  freedom  of 
expression. The tasks, organisational structure and rules of procedure of the national  media 
regulatory  authority,  the  Danish  Radio  and  Television  Board,  are  prescribed  in  law94. 
Secondary  legislation  also  provides  safeguards  for  the  independence  of  the  public  service 
broadcasters95.  There  are  no  specific  laws  pertaining  to  transparency  of  media  ownership, 
allocation  of  state  advertising,  editorial  independence  or  ownership  of  media  companies. 
Access to documents is regulated in the Access to Public Administrative Documents Act of 
2014. The Audiovisual Media Services Directive96 has been transposed97. 

The  existing  media  self-regulatory  system  is  being  assessed  in  view  of  possible  future 
updates.  In May 2022, the Government  announced the new political  Media Agreement for 
2022-2025  consisting  of  different  policy  initiatives98.  One  of  the  initiatives  concerns 
examining the future role of the Danish Press Council and a possible creation of a new media 
ombudsperson  to  support  it.  The  ombudsperson  could  be  based  on  the  Swedish  model  and 
could  investigate  cases  on  its  own  initiative  and  contribute  to  good  journalistic  practice 
through opinion-forming, media ethics debates and initiatives.  The Media Agreement states 
an intention to establish a committee with representation from the media industry, experts and 
others  to  make  recommendations  in  this  regard  with  a  view  to  subsequent  political 
discussions99. Should the post of the ombudsperson be created, stakeholders have submitted 
that it will be important that the ombudsperson is appointed by the media industry and not by 
the Government in order to safeguard the editorial independence of the media100.  

Editorial independence has traditionally a strong culture. According to the Danish Media 
Liability Act, all news media – broadcast, print and online press – must have one responsible 
editor  empowered  to  make  a  final  decision  regarding  the  relevant  content101.  There  are  no 
specific  legal  safeguards  regarding  editorial  independence102.  In  practice,  this  is  not  being 
perceived  as  generating  any  major  issues103  and  the  self-regulating  body  has  so  far  been 
successful  at  securing  editorial  autonomy  of  the  Danish  news  media104,  although  the  MPM 
2022 gives some examples of parliamentary parties exerting influence105. The fact that most 

94   The  Radio  and  Television  Broadcasting  Act,  Executive  Order  on  the  Radio  and  Television  Board  and  the 

Danish Public Administration Act. 

95   The Radio and Television Broadcasting Act, Ordinance of the Radio and Television Broadcasting Act, Act 

Amending the Act on Radio and Television Broadcasting Act. 

96   Complete transposition of Directive (EU) 2018/1808 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of 
certain  provisions  laid  down  by  law,  regulation  or  administrative  action  in  Member  States  concerning  the 
provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market 
realities was notified to the Commission on 18 September 2020. 

97   Denmark ranks 2nd in the 2022 Reporters without Borders World Press Freedom Index compared to 4th in 

the previous year. 

98   Ministry of Culture (2022), Media Agreement for 2022-2025.  
99  Ibid, p. 13. 
100  Information received from the Danish Union of Journalists in the context of the country visit to Denmark; 
Journalisten (2022), Government proposals have raised concerns - but in Sweden the state has no power over 
the media ombudsman. 

101  The Media Liability Act – Consolidating Act 2018-12-27 no. 1719, sections 3 and 5. 
102  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Denmark, pp. 8-9, 16 and 28. 
103  Information received from the Danish Media  Association,  the  Danish Union of Journalists and the Danish 

Press Council in the context of the country visit to Denmark. 
104  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Denmark, p. 17. 
105  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Denmark, pp. 16-17. 

12 

 
                                                 
newspapers in Denmark are foundation-owned can serve as a safeguard against  commercial 
pressure  exerted  by  owners106.  The  Media  Agreement  sets  out  an  intention  to  study 
possibilities to update the current framework for media responsibility to fit the digital media 
reality, including responsibilities of influencers over the content that they upload online107. 

The independence of public service media is prescribed by law. In Denmark, there are two 
public  service  broadcasters,  Danmarks  Radio  (DR)  and  the  regional  broadcaster  TV  2. 
According to the Radio and Television Broadcasting Act and further regulation in connection 
with the Act, Danish public service media are organised as independent media undertakings 
and the State cannot interfere with their programme services or administrative and financial 
management108.  Members  of,  or  candidates  for,  the  Parliament,  the  Regional  Council,  the 
European  Parliament  or  municipal  councils  may  not  be  members  of  their  respective  top 
managerial and supervisory boards109. The relationship between public service media and the 
Government is also guided by an arm’s length principle, which means that neither politicians 
nor the Ministry of Culture should interfere in the decisions of the public service media once 
the general rules have been laid down, or act as arbiters of taste110. The principle is aimed at 
preventing  the  political  level  from  interfering  in  editorial  discussions  and  day-to-day 
practices111 and is deemed to result in a low-risk score for the independence of public service 
media governance and funding112. Indeed, the Danish public service media do not report any 
issues  with  their  independence  but  identify  digital  transformation  and  big  tech  companies 
occasionally  removing  from  their  digital  distribution  services  public  service  media  content 
without proper explanation as a source of challenges113. DR and TV 2 are both supervised by 
the Radio and Television Board, which issues regular opinions on statements by broadcasters 
concerning the performance of public service contracts and licences to provide public service 
programming114.  The  Media  Agreement  for  2022-2025  foresees  financial  strengthening  of 
DR in the coming years115. 

A possible revision of the Access to Public Administrative Documents Act continues to 
be  debated.  As  noted  in  the  2020  and  2021  Rule  of  Law  Reports116,  the  Access  to  Public 
Administrative Documents Act, which provides the rules for all public administration bodies 
and  Ministries  on  public  access  to  information  and  documents,  continues  to  be  subject  to 
certain  restrictions  limiting  public  and  journalistic  access  to  specific  governmental  files,  in 
particular  internal  working  documents  of  authorities  and  documents,  which  are  being 

106  Blach-Ørsten, M., Burkal, R., Mayerhöffer, E., & Willig, I. (2021), Denmark: High media independence and 
informal  democratic  traditions  in  the  newsroom.  In  J.  Trappel,  &  T.  Tomaz  (Eds.),  The  Media  for 
Democracy Monitor 2021: How leading news media survive digital transformation (Vol. 2), p. 155. 

107  Ministry of Culture (2022) Media Agreement for 2022-2025, p. 13. 
108  Input from Denmark for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 20. 
109  Article  16(3)(4)  and  Article  36(2) of  LBK  Nr.  1350 of  0409/2020  Ordinance  of  the  Radio  and Television 

Broadcasting Act. 

110  Ministry of Culture (2012), Quadrennial periodic report on measures to protect and promote the diversity of 
cultural expressions  – Denmark, pp. 3-4;  written contribution from the  Radio and Television Board in  the 
context of the country visit. 

111  Blach-Ørsten, M., Burkal, R., Mayerhöffer, E., & Willig, I. (2021), Denmark: High media independence and 
informal  democratic  traditions  in  the  newsroom.  In  J.  Trappel,  &  T.  Tomaz  (Eds.),  The  Media  for 
Democracy Monitor 2021: How leading news media survive digital transformation (Vol. 2), p. 167.  

112  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Denmark, p. 16 and 18. 
113  Written contribution from Danmarks Radio in the context of the country visit. 
114  Article 39(1)(3) of LOV nr 2212 of 29/12/2020 Act Amending the Radio and Television Broadcasting Act. 
115   Ministry of Culture (2022) Media Agreement for 2022-2025, p. 6. 
116  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 10; 2021 Rule of Law 

Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 10. 

13 

 
                                                 
exchanged at a time when a minister needs the advice and counsel of his staff117. Negotiations 
mandated  by  a  Parliament  resolution118  are  currently  ongoing  regarding  a  possible  political 
agreement to restrict the use of some of these exceptions under the Act, which can have the 
effect of keeping the basis of some political agreements confidential119. No proposed solution 
or timeline has been made public120. The Parliamentary Ombudsperson reports that access to 
documents  cases  is  one  of  the  areas  of  complaints  that  are  growing  rapidly.  In  2021,  the 
Ombudsman received 399 complaints related to access to documents, which was an increase 
of more than 100 complaints compared to 2020121. 

An  action plan on safety of journalists has been  launched and the Criminal  Code was 
amended  to  introduce  more  severe  sentences  for  threats  to  freedom  of  expression.  In 
June  2022,  the  Danish  Union  of  Journalists,  the  Danish  Media  Association,  International 
Media  Support,  UNESCO  Denmark,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  the  Ministry  of  Culture, 
published a national action plan on the safety of journalists122. The plan’s aim is to facilitate 
journalists’ reporting of harassment and threats. Additionally, in December 2021, the Danish 
Criminal Code was amended to make it an aggravating circumstance when a threat is aimed 
at  preventing  the  victim  from  making  use  of  their  freedom  of  speech123.  The  law  helps 
citizens  to  participate  in  public  debate  on  social  media  and  applies  also  to  journalists.  The 
MPM 2022 considers that in Denmark, there is a very low risk to the protection of freedom of 
expression, although risks online are more difficult to assess124 and two incidents have been 
reported  regarding  journalists’  ability  to  publish  specific  type  of  information.  In  December 
2021, the Council of Europe’s Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of 
journalists  published  one  new  alert  for  Denmark  concerning  meetings  held  between  the 
Danish intelligence services (PET and FE) and three Danish media companies in which the 
intelligence  services  had  warned  against  unlawful  disclosure  of  classified  information 
following  the  arrest  of  four  intelligence  officers  accused  of  leaking  information125.  The 
Danish  State  has  clarified  that  the  action  was  justified  in  light  of  the  Criminal  Code126. 
Danish  media  stakeholders  also  point  to  one  strategic  lawsuit  against  public  participation 
(SLAPP) case in Denmark whereby businesspersons sued a journalist and a daily newspaper 

117  Sections 19 to 33 and Section 35 of the Access to Public Administrative Documents Act. 
118  Danish  Parliament  (2021),  Resolution  on  the  convening  of  negotiations  on  the  Danish  Public  Access  Act; 

2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 10. 

119 According to Recommendation CM/Rec(2002)2 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to 
member  states  on  access  to  official  documents,  Member  States  may  limit  the  right  of  access  to  official 
documents when set down precisely in law, necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to one of the 
listed aims. 

120  Information  received  from  the  Ministry  of  Justice,  Danish  Media  Association,  the  Danish  Union  of 

Journalists and the Danish Press Council in the context of the country visit to Denmark. 

121  Parliamentary Ombudsman (2022), 2021 Annual Report, p. 6. 
122  Danish Union of Journalists (2022) Action Plan on the Safety of Journalists. 
123  Input from the Danish Government for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 20; law Nr. 2601 of 28 December 

2021, § 1(5). 

124  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Denmark, p. 10; There are no reports of journalists being 

killed, assaulted or arbitrarily arrested. 

125  Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists,  Denmark; 
flagged also in the Contribution from the Danish Human Rights Institute via ENNHRI for the 2022 Rule of 
Law Report. 

126  Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists,  Denmark, 

Reply from the Danish authorities (21 March 2022). 

14 

 
                                                 
for a number of critical articles but later dropped the case127. As part of the public discussion 
around  the  case,  the  Chairman  of  the  Danish  Bar  Council  wrote  a  statement,  stressing  the 
need  for  independent  media  and  asking  lawyers  to  look  out  for  SLAPP  cases  and  consider 
carefully whether to go to court against journalists and media128. 

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Denmark  has  a  unicameral,  parliamentary  system  of  government,  in  which  both  the 
Government  and members of Parliament  can propose legislation, although draft bills  are in 
general  presented  by  the  Government.  In  the  absence  of  a  constitutional  court,  ex-post 
constitutionality  review  can  be  carried  out  by  all  courts  in  concrete  cases129.  The 
Parliamentary  Ombudsperson  provides  oversight  on  decisions  by  public  authorities  and  the 
Danish Institute for Human Rights monitors the respect of fundamental rights. 

The  guidelines  of  Parliament’s  Standing  Orders  Committee  on  fast-track  procedures 
have been overall  respected notwithstanding an increase in legislative activity in 2021. 
In  2021,  Parliament  experienced  a  significant  increase  in  legislative  activity130.  This  was 
following an agreement between Parliament and Government in 2020 to limit the number of 
legislative proposals  and motions  due to  the COVID-19 pandemic131. As noted in  the 2021 
Rule  of  Law  Report,  a  report  by  the  Standing  Orders  Committee  from  March  2021132 
proposed a number of guidelines for the use of fast-track proceedings133. It also highlights the 
importance of submitting all proposals, including urgent ones, to a public consultation. After 
a period in  2020-2021  with  a stronger use of  fast-track proceedings, the proportion of fast-
track  proceedings  is  slowly  diminishing134.  Since  the  adoption  of  the  Standing  Orders 
Committee  report  in  March  2021,  27  legislative  drafts  were  presented  and  adopted  by 
Parliament under the fast-track proceedings,  which were overall complying  with  the formal 

127  Journalisten  (2022),  Plaintiffs  dropped  million-kroner  case  against  Jonas;  Information  received  from  the 
Danish Press Council, the Danish Media Association and the Danish Union of Journalists in the context of 
the country visit to Denmark. 

128  Danish Bar and Law Society (2022), Bar Council says: Lawyers must watch out for SLAPP cases. 
129  This happens rarely and there has only been one case in which the Supreme Court decided to disapply a law 

for being incompatible with the Constitution that is the 1999, Tvind case, U 1999.841 H. 

130  For  the  period  October  2020  –  October  2021,  259  proposals  were  submitted  to  Parliament,  the  highest 
number  in  the  past  ten  years.  Input  from  Denmark  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  22  and  written 
contribution from the Danish Parliament Standing Orders Committee in the context of the country visit.  
131  Information received from the Danish Parliament Standing Orders Committee during the country visit.  
132  Standing Orders Committee (2021), Report concerning urgent consideration of government draft laws. 
133  The  draft  legislation  should  contain  a  sunset  clause,  leading  to  an  act  ceasing  to  apply,  unless  Parliament 
before that date has adopted a revision of the relevant provision. Nevertheless, there are exemptions to the 
use of the sunset clause, for example it is not necessary where the effect of the legislation according to its 
content is limited or specific well-founded circumstances require an absence of a sunset clause. Furthermore, 
if there has been no consultation due to extraordinary circumstances, Parliament needs to be provided with 
an explanation of the relevant circumstances. Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context 
of the country visit.  

134  The  sessional  year  of  the  Parliament  runs  from  the  first  Tuesday  of  October  until  the  first  Tuesday  of 
October the following year. In this context, it is also worth noting that the periods October 2019 – October 
2020  and  October  2020  –  October  2021  were  marked  by  an  increase  in  laws  adopted  in  an  expedited 
procedure, i.e. within 30 days after their proposal, in particular due to the COVID-19-crisis (22% and 14%, 
respectively).  For  the  period  October  2021  –  7  April  2022,  the  proportion  of  expedited  procedures  (5%) 
appears  to  be  reverting  toward  the  usual  proportion  (between  3%  and  5%  between  2012  and  2019).  Input 
from Denmark for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 22 and written contribution from the Ministry of Justice 
in the context of the country visit. 

15 

 
                                                 
requirements of the guidelines135. While the general framework for stakeholder consultation 
is  considered  to  be  robust136,  some  stakeholders  have  continued  to  refer  to  shortened 
consultation  periods which  can limit  the ability to  participate for civil  society organisations 
with fewer resources137.  

A  Government  report  on  the  use  of  the  new  Epidemic  Act  was  subject  to  a  public 
consultation. As noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, a new Epidemic Act was passed on 
23  February  2021  providing  for  a  greater  involvement  of  the  Parliament  when  handling 
COVID-19 and other  future epidemics138. Under this  Act,  before the Government issues an 
executive  order  on  areas  enabled  in  the  Epidemic  Act,  it  must  be  presented  to  the 
Parliamentary Committee of Epidemics139. In cases of immediate danger or threats to public 
health,  the  consultation  of  that  Committee  can  be  postponed  until  after  the  executive  order 
has been issued, but the consultation must take place at the earliest possible date thereafter140. 
This derogation has not been used141. In October 2021, the Government sent a report on the 
use of the new Epidemic Act to Parliament142. The report touches upon the experiences of the 
public authorities in applying the law, such as the impact of the limitation of executive orders 
to  four  weeks  or  the  experience  in  applying  the  rules  on  automatic  local  closures. 
Subsequently,  in  February  2022,  the  Government  submitted  to  Parliament  the  responses  to 
the  report  received  in  the  public  consultation;  the  stakeholders  have  welcomed  the  review, 
while  among  other  commenting  on  the  composition  on  the  Epidemics  Commission  or their 
experiences on public consultations143.  The Minister of Health has discussed the report and 
the responses from the public consultation with parties in the Parliament, and is expected to 
prepare a change relating to the rules of procedure for the Epidemics Commission, which will 
be subject to a public consultation144. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has received about 100 
complaints  on  Government  measures  related  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic145.  The  Supreme 
Court did not review any cases challenging Government measures adopted in response to the 
COVID-19 pandemic146. 

The first example of the new commission of scrutiny procedure examined the decision 
on culling of mink and has submitted its report to a Parliament committee on 30 June 
2022. As noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, in April 2021, Parliament passed legislation 
introducing  a  new  system  of  commissions  of  scrutiny147,  with  commissions  able  to  be 

135  Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit. 
136  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 12.  
137  Contribution from the European Civic Forum for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 4  
138  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 12. 
139  Section 9, first paragraph of the Epidemics Act, Law Nr. 285 of 27 February 2021. 
140  If the committee objects, the Government  must repeal the executive order. Section 9, second paragraph of 

the Epidemics Act, Law Nr. 285 of 27 February 2021. 

141  Input from Denmark for the 2022 Rule of Law report, p. 23.  
142  Danish Ministry of Health (2021), Report to Parliament on the application of the Epidemics Act.  
143  Danish  Parliament  (2022),  Consultation  summary  and  consultation  response  regarding  the  Ministry  of 

Health's statement on the application of the Epidemics Act, from the Minister of Health.  

144  Input from Denmark for the 2022 Rule of Law report, p. 23 and information received  from the Ministry of 

Health in the context of the country visit. 

145  The  types  of  complaints  concerned  a  variety  of  issues,  such  as  access  to  information  by  journalists, 
vaccination  framework or  whether vaccines should be  offered to children. The Parliamentary Ombudsman 
also  carried  out  own-initiative  investigations,  for  example  how  the  COVID-19  pandemic  restrictions  were 
being  applied  in  prisons.  Parliamentary  Ombudsman  (2022),  Annual  report  2021,  p.  5  and  information 
received from the Parliamentary Ombudsman in the context of the country visit.  
146  Information received from the Supreme Court in the context of the country visit.  
147  Act amending the Act on Commissions of Inquiry and the Code of Judicial Procedure.  

16 

 
                                                 
established  under  the  control  of  Parliament  to  carry  out  a  more  focused  investigation  on 
specific matters within 12 months148. The first  such commission  was  set  up to  examine the 
Government’s actions related to the culling of minks, including whether there was a sufficient 
legal basis for the decision149. The commission of scrutiny carried out a number of hearings, 
which involved the Prime Minister and a number of members of Government150. Its mandate 
was  further  expanded  in  November  2021151  to  include  the  outreach  activities  by  the  police 
using so-called  ‘action  cards’.  On 30 June 2022, the  commission  delivered its  report  to  the 
Parliament’s  Scrutiny  Committee152,  which,  on  5  July  2022,  endorsed  the  commission’s 
findings as regards the Prime Minister and a former minister153.  

The  Court  of  Impeachment  has  rendered  an  important  ruling  relating  to  the 
accountability  of  a  former  minister.  The  Court  of  Impeachment  consists  of  up  to  15 
Supreme  Court  judges  and  the  same  number  of  members  elected  by  the  Parliament154. 
According  to  the  Ministerial  Responsibility  Act,  ministers  can  be  sanctioned  if  they 
intentionally or through gross negligence fail to fulfil the duties incumbent on them under the 
Constitution, legislation in general or pertaining to the nature of their office155. In December 
2021, the Court of Impeachment sentenced a former minister156. Judgments by the Court of 
Impeachment  are  very  rare  and  since  its  establishment  in  1849,  there  have  been  only  six 
impeachment proceedings (the previous one being in 1995)157. 

The  Parliamentary  Ombudsman  and  the  Danish  Institute  for  Human  Rights  consider 
that  the  authorities  cooperate  effectively  with  them  and  follow-up  on  their 
recommendations.  The  Parliamentary  Ombudsman  has  sufficient  resources  to  fulfil  its 
mission158, but the trend towards an increasing number of complaints may pose a challenge in 
the future159. In terms of complaints received in 2021160, since the COVID-19 pandemic they 

148  By contrast, the Government is responsible for commissions of inquiry. See also 2021 Rule of Law Report, 

Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 13. 

149  The Mink Commission (2021), Terms of reference.  
150  This  has  included  the  Minister  of  Finance,  Minister  of  Justice  and  Minister  of  Health.  The  Mink 

Commission (2022), Hearings. 

151  The Mink Commission (2021), Terms of reference.  
152  The Mink Commission (2022), The commission of scrutiny has delivered its report.  
153  DR  (2022),  Mette  Frederiksen  gets  a  nose  for  her  role  in  the  mink  case,  TV  2  (2022),  Mette  Frederiksen 

officially gets a nose. 

154  The  politically  elected  members  are  supposed  to  add  their  political  experience  to  the  assessment  of  cases 
against  ministers.  They  cannot  be  members  of  Parliament.  In  the  case  at  hand,  there  were  only  26  judges 
because two Supreme Court judges had recused themselves and the number of politically elected members 
was  adjusted  downwards  accordingly.  Danish  Parliament  (2022),  Court  of  Impeachment  and  information 
received from the Supreme Court during the country visit. 

155  Article § 5, paragraph 1 of the Act on Ministerial Responsibility.  
156  The former minister was found guilty to have,  in the period from 10 February to 18 March 2016, initiated 
and  maintained  a  separated  accommodation  of  asylum-seeking  spouses  and  cohabiting  couples,  where  at 
least  one  party  was  under  18  years  of  age,  in  breach  of  Article  8  of  the  European  Convention  on  Human 
Rights  and  in  breach  of  general  principles  of  administrative  law.  Court  of  Impeachment,  judgment  of  13 
December 2021, p. 143-144. Court of Impeachment (2021), The Court of Impeachment has ruled in the case 
against former Minister Inger Støjberg.  

157  Danish Parliament (2022), Court of Impeachment.  
158  The  Parliament  allocated  approximately  EUR  12.5  million  (DKK  93.3  million)  in  annual  funding  of  the 

Ombudsman institution in 2021. Input from Denmark for the 2022 Rule of Law report, p. 25. 

159  According to the Ombudsman’s data for 2021, the institution handled a total of 5 587 cases of which about 
14%  led  to  led  to  an  investigation  (815  cases,  of  which  200  full  investigations  and  615  shortened 
investigations). Out of the 200 full investigations, 78 have led to criticism or recommendations. In 2021, the 
Parliamentary  Ombudsman  opened  5 643  cases,  which  is  the  second  highest  number  in  the  history  of  this 

17 

 
                                                 
 
have  more  frequently  concerned  delays  in  the  handling  of  administrative  procedures.  Own-
initiative  investigations  have  particularly  focused  on  the  handling  of  family  matters  and 
access  to  documents  requests161.  The  Parliamentary  Ombudsman  did  not  experience  any 
obstruction  or  refusal  to  cooperate  by  public  authorities  and  considers  the  Ombudsman’s 
recommendations are being implemented162. The Danish Institute for Human Rights which is 
the independent National Human Rights Institution accreddited with A-Status, reports that the 
public  authorities  tend  to  take  recommendations  from  the  Institute  into  thorough 
consideration163. The Institute considers to have sufficient resources164.  

On  1  January  2022,  Denmark  had  3  leading  judgments  of  the  European  Court  of 
Human  Rights  pending  implementation165.  At  that  time,  Denmark’s  rate  of  leading 
judgments  from  the  past  10  years  that  remained  pending  was  at  60%  and  the  average  time 
that  the  judgments  had  been  pending  implementation  was  only  6  months166.  The  former  is 
explained  by  the  fact  that  only  5  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  judgments  have  been 
delivered against Denmark in that period, 3 of which were made final in the last 2 years and 
were pending implementation167. On 1 July 2022, the number of leading judgments pending 
implementation remains at 3168.  

The civic space in Denmark remains open with a robust framework for the involvement 
of  civil  society  organisations.  The  civic  space  in  Denmark  continues  to  be  considered  as 
open169  with  robust  mechanisms  for  the  involvement  of  civil  society  organisations170.  In 
November 2021, the Government parties agreed to distribute approximately EUR 115 million 
(DKK 860.5 million) over the next four years, into the social, health and labor market sector, 
which also includes a civil society strategy for the period 2022-2025 for the aforementioned 

body  and  just  below  the  record  number  5 912  cases  in  2020.  Parliamentary  Ombudsman  (2022),  Annual 
report 2021, p. 8 and 72 and information received from the Parliamentary Ombudsman in the context of the 
country visit. 

160  Parliamentary Ombudsman (2022), Annual report 2021, p. 6-8. 
161  In 2021, the Ombudsman opened an own initiative investigation into the time taken by the Family Court to 
deal  with  cases  on  supervised  access  after  judgment  and  temporary  custody.  The  Ombudsman  has  also 
monitored the authorities' processing times for replying to access to documents requests from journalists and 
other individuals. Parliamentary Ombudsman (2022), Annual report 2021, p. 6. 
162  Information received from the Parliamentary Ombudsman during the country visit. 
163  Contribution from the Danish Human Rights Institute via ENNHRI for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 2 

and information received from the Danish Human Rights Institute in the context of the country visit.  

164  Information received from the Danish Human Rights Institute in the context of the country visit. 
165  The adoption of necessary execution  measures  for a  judgment by the European  Court of Human  Rights is 
supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It is the Committee’s practice to group 
cases against a State requiring similar execution measures, particularly general measures, and examine them 
jointly. The first case in the group is designated as the leading case as regards the supervision of the general 
measures and repetitive cases within the group can be closed when it is assessed that all possible individual 
measures needed to provide redress to the applicant have been taken. 

166  All figures are calculated by the European Implementation Network and are based on the number of cases 
that  are  considered  pending  at  the  annual  cut-off  date  of  1  January  2022.  See  the  Contribution  from  the 
European Implementation Network for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 38.  

167  Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 15 September 2020, Aggerholm v. Denmark, 45439/18, 
pending implementation since 2020, and judgments of the European Court of Human Rights of 9 July 2021, 
M.A.  v.  Denmark,  6697/18  and  of  7  December  2021  Savran  v.  Denmark  57467/15,  both  pending 
implementation since 2021. 

168  Data according to the online database of the Council of Europe (HUDOC). 

169  Rating  given  by  CIVICUS,  ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed,  obstructed, 

repressed and closed.  

170  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark, p. 14. 

18 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
sectors171.  The  Danish  Institute  for  Human  Rights  has  raised  concerns  regarding  the 
prohibition of receiving donations from certain physical persons and legal entities172 and the 
draft law on introducing the possibility of police  imposing an assembly  ban in  a locality in 
order to maintain public order173. Though the assembly-ban contained in the ‘Security for all 
Danes’ proposal was strongly opposed by civil society and ultimately rejected by Parliament 
in  June  2021,  stakeholders  consider  that  it  demonstrated  the  need  for  an  increased 
involvement  of  civil  society  organisations  in  the  preparation  of  legislative  proposals, 
especially related to security measures, that could negatively impact civic space174.  

171  The civil society strategy aims to  support volunteer organisations by focusing on strengthened cooperation 
with  civil  society  on  development  of  welfare  solutions  Nevertheless,  the  proposed  financing  model  is 
considered as uncertain by some civil society organisations. Previously, civil society organisations used to 
apply for funding, whereas under the current system fixed amounts are distributed. Some organisations are 
concerned  whether  they  will  be  allocated  sufficient  funds.  This  funding  has  replaced  the  Governments 
previous  social  investment  fund  (Satspuljen).  Franet  (2022),  Country  research  -  Legal  environment  and 
space of civil society organisations in supporting fundamental rights – Denmark, p. 3. 

172 In March 2021, legislation introduced a prohibition of receiving donations from certain physical persons and 
legal entities, which raised some concerns by the Danish Human Rights Institute and stakeholders due to a 
risk of arbitrariness in its application. In March 2022, a first individual was added to the list of prohibited 
donors.  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Denmark,  p.  14  and 
information received from the Danish Institute for Human Rights during the country visit. 

173  Contribution from the Danish Human Rights Institute via ENNHRI for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 3.  
174  Franet (2022), Country research - Legal environment and space of civil society organisations in supporting 
fundamental rights – Denmark, p. 5, contribution from the Danish Human Rights Institute via ENNHRI for 
the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 3, contribution from the European Civic Forum  for the 2022 Rule of Law 
Report, p. 3, and written contribution from Nyt Europa in the context of the country visit. 

19 

 
 
 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2022 Rule of Law report 
can  be  found  at  https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2022-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-
consultation_en. 

Agency 
https://modst.dk/media/18742/code-of-conduct-in-the-public-sectorforside.pdf.  

for  modernisation 

(2017),  Code 

conduct 

of 

in 

the 

public 

sector 

Altinget (2022), ‘Parties to negotiate on court finances: “It is not a law of nature that the agreement 
must be administrative”’ (Partier vil forhandle om domstolenes økonomi: “Det er jo ingen naturlov, 
at  aftalen 
skal  være  administrativ”)  https://www.altinget.dk/embedsvaerk/artikel/partier-vil-
forhandle-om-domstolenes-oekonomi-det-er-jo-ingen-naturlov-at-aftalen-skal-vaere-administrativ. 

Altinget (2022), Hækkerup's exit reignits debate over conflict of interest: Here are the top politicians 
who  took  the  revolving  door  before  him  (Hækkerups  exit  genantænder  debat  om  interessekonflikt: 
Her 
ham) 
der 
https://www.altinget.dk/civilsamfund/artikel/haekkerups-exit-genantaender-debat-om-
interessekonflikt-her-er-de-toppolitikere-der-tog-svingdoeren-foer-ham.  

toppolitikere, 

svingdøren 

tog 

før 

de 

er 

Altinget  (2022),  Hækkerup's  shift  calls  for  democratic  self-examination  (Hækkerups  skift  kalder  på 
demokratisk selvransagelse) https://www.altinget.dk/artikel/haekkerups-skift-kalder-paa-demokratisk-
selvransagelse. 

Blach-Ørsten,  M.,  Burkal,  R.,  Mayerhöffer,  E.,  &  Willig,  I.  (2021).  Denmark:  High  media 
independence and informal democratic traditions in the newsroom. In J. Trappel, & T. Tomaz (Eds.), 
The  Media  for  Democracy  Monitor  2021:  How  leading  news  media  survive  digital  transformation 
(Vol. 2) p 167. Nordicom, University of Gothenburg https://doi.org/10.48335/9789188855428-4. 

Berlingske Tidende (2022), Commentary: Long waiting times must not undermine confidence in the 
justice  system  (Kommentar:  Lange  ventetider  må 
til  retssystemet) 
https://www.berlingske.dk/kommentarer/lange-ventetider-oedelaegger-tilliden-til-retssystemet. 

ikke  ødelægge 

tilliden 

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2022),  Media  pluralism  monitor  2022  –  country 
report on Denmark. 

CEPEJ (2021), Study on the functioning of the judicial systems in the EU Member States.  

Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space – Denmark https://rsf.org/en/denmark. 

Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  – 
Denmark https://fom.coe.int/en/alerte/detail/107636699. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2002),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2002)2  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on access to official documents. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2010),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. 

Court  of  Impeachment  (2021),  The  Court  of  Impeachment  has  ruled  in  the  case  against  former 
Minister  Inger  Støjberg  (Rigsretten  har  afsagt  dom  i  sagen  mod  fhv.  minister  Inger  Støjberg) 
https://rigsretten.dk/aktuelt/2021/12/rigsretten-har-afsagt-dom-i-sagen-mod-fhv-minister-inger-
stoejberg/. 

Court of Impeachment, judgment of 13 December 2021. 

Danish Association of Judges (2021), Response to public consultation on the draft law amending the 
Criminal  Code, 
the  Road  Traffic  Act 
of  Criminal  Procedure 
https://www.dommerforeningen.dk/dommerforeningen/hoeringssvar/2021/bemaerkninger-til-
lovudkast-om-aendring-af-straffeloven-retsplejeloven-og-faerdselsloven-implementering-af-
initiativer-i-aftaler-om-politiets-og-anklagemyndighedens-oekonomi/. 

the  Code 

and 

20 

 
Danish Association of Judges (2022), Response to the public consultation on the draft law amending 
the  Penal  Code, the  Code of  Judicial  Procedure  and various  other  laws  (Streamlining the criminal 
case  chain  and  the  tribunal  process,  etc.  in  the  Juvenile  Delinquency  Board,  increased  access  to 
disclosure  and  recording  of  photos,  improving  police  opportunities  for  investigation,  etc.) 
https://www.dommerforeningen.dk/media/74901/justitsministeriet.pdf. 

Danish Association of Judges (2022), Response to the public consultation on the draft law on police 
activities  https://www.dommerforeningen.dk/dommerforeningen/hoeringssvar/2022/hoeringssvar-til-
lovudkast-om-politiets-virksomhed-mv/. 

Danish Association of Judges (2022), Written contribution from the Danish Association of Judges for 
the 2022 Rule of Law Report in the context of the country visit. 

Danish Bar and Law Society (2021), Response to public consultation on the draft law amending the 
the  Road  Traffic  Act 
of  Criminal  Procedure 
Criminal  Code, 
https://www.advokatsamfundet.dk/om-advokatsamfundet/advokatradet/horingssvar-liste/2021/2021-
2747-strafferetsudvalget. 

the  Code 

and 

Danish  Bar  and  Law  Society  (2022),  Bar  Council  says:  Lawyers  must  watch  out  for  SLAPP  cases 
(Advokatrådet 
SLAPP-sager) 
https://www.advokatsamfundet.dk/nyheder-medier/nyheder/2022/advokatradet-mener-advokater-skal-
passe-pa-slapp-sager/.  

Advokater 

mener: 

passe 

skal 

på 

Danish Bar and Law Society (2022), Long waiting times must not undermine confidence in the justice 
system 
retssystemet) 
https://www.advokatsamfundet.dk/nyheder-medier/nyheder/2022/kommentar-lange-ventetider-ma-
ikke-odelaegge-tilliden-til-retssystemet/. 

(Kommentar:  Lange 

ikke  ødelægge 

ventetider  må 

tilliden 

til 

Danish  Government  (2020),  Reflection  Paper  for  an  Agreement  on  the  finances  of  the  Police  and 
Prosecutor’s 
Justice 
2021-2024 
https://www.justitsministeriet.dk/wpcontent/uploads/2020/08/trygheden_foerst_final-a.pdf. 

Ministry 

Office 

of 

Danish Government (2021), Input from Denmark for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

Danish Government (2022), Input from Denmark for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Danish Institute for Human Rights (2021), Response to public consultation on the draft law amending 
the  Criminal  Code, 
the  Road  Traffic  Act 
https://menneskeret.dk/sites/menneskeret.dk/files/media/document/H%C3%B8ringssvar%20vedr.%20
forslag%20til%20lov%20om%20%C3%A6ndring%20af%20straffeloven%2C%20retsplejeloven%20
og%20f%C3%A6rdselsloven%20%28Implementering%20af%20initiativer%20i%20aftale%20om%2
0politiets%20anklagemyndighedens%20%C3%B8konomi%202021-2023%29.pdf. 

the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  and 

Danish  Institute  for  Human  Rights  (2022),  Response  to  public  consultation  an  Act  amending  the 
Penal Code, the Code of Judicial Procedure and various other laws (Streamlining the criminal case 
chain and the tribunal process, etc. in the Juvenile Delinquency Board, increased access to disclosure 
and 
etc.) 
police 
https://menneskeret.dk/hoeringssvar/naevnsprocessen-mv-ungdomskriminalitetsnaevnet-politiets-
muligheder-efterforskning. 

investigation, 

opportunities 

improving 

recording 

photos, 

for 

of 

Danish Parliament (2021), Resolution on the convening of negotiations on the Danish Public Access 
Act https://www.ft.dk/samling/20201/beslutningsforslag/B169/som_vedtaget.htm.  

Danish 
https://www.ft.dk/da/folkestyret/domstolene/rigsretten.  

Parliament 

(2022), 

Court 

of 

Impeachment 

(Rigsretten) 

Danish Parliament (2022), Consultation summary and consultation response regarding the Ministry of 
Health's  statement  on  the  application  of  the  Epidemics  Act,  from  the  Minister  of  Health, 
(Høringsresume  og  høringssvar  vedr.  Sundhedsministeriets  redegørelse  om  anvendelse  af 
epidemiloven, 
sundhedsministeren) 
https://www.ft.dk/samling/20211/almdel/epi/bilag/344/index.htm.  

fra 

21 

 
Danish  Parliamentary  Standing  Orders  Committee  (2022),  Written  contribution  from  the  Danish 
Parliamentary  Standing  Orders  Committee  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report  in  the  context  of  the 
country visit. 

Danish Police (2022), Written contribution from the Danish Police for the 2022 Rule of Law Report in 
the context of the country visit. 

Danish  Radio  and  Television  Board  (2022),  Written  contribution  from  the  Danish  Radio  and 
Television Board for the 2022 Rule of Law Report in the context of the country visit. 

Danmarks Radio (2022), Written contribution from Danmarks Radio for the 2022 Rule of Law Report 
in the context of the country visit. 

Danish Union of Journalists (2022), Action Plan on the Safety of Journalists (Dansk handlingsplan for 
journalister)  https://journalistforbundet.dk/nyhed/ny-faelles-dansk-handlingsplan-
sikkerhed 
journalisters-sikkerhed. 

for 

Datatilsynet  (2022),  Whistle-blowing  at  half  a  year  (Whistleblowerordning  fylder  et  halvt  år) 
https://www.datatilsynet.dk/presse-og-nyheder/nyhedsarkiv/2022/jun/whistleblowerordning-fylder-et-
halvt-aar. 

Directive (EU) 2018/1808 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions 
laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of 
audiovisual  media  services  (Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive)  in  view  of  changing  market 
realities. 

Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the 
protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2019),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2022),  Flash  Eurobarometer  507:  businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Special Eurobarometer 523: corruption. 

DR  (2022),  Mette  Frederiksen  gets  a  nose  for  her  role  in  the  mink  case  (Mette  Frederiksen  får  en 
næse  for  sin  rolle  i  minksagen)  https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/mette-frederiksen-faar-en-naese-
sin-rolle-i-minksagen.   

Employee and Competence Agency (2022), Written contribution from the Employee and Competence 
Agency in the context of the country visit. 

ENNHRI  (2022),  Contribution  from  the  Danish  Human  Rights  Institute  via  ENNHRI  for  the  2022 
Rule of Law Report. 

European  Civic  Forum  (2022),  Contribution  from  the  European  Civic  Forum  for  the  2022  Rule  of 
Law Report https://civicspacewatch.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Denmark.pdf.  

European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Denmark. 

European Commission (2021), 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Denmark. 

European Commission (2022), 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European  Court  of  Human  Rights,  judgment  of  judgment  of  15  September  2020,  Aggerholm  v. 
Denmark, 45439/18. 

European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 20 October 2015, Dvorski v. Croatia, 25703/11. 

European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 9 July 2021, M.A. v. Denmark, 6697/18. 

22 

 
European Implementation Network (2022), Contribution from the European Implementation Network 
for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.  

Franet, Danish Institute for Human Rights (2022), Country research - Legal environment and space of 
civil  society  organisations  in  supporting  fundamental  rights  –  Denmark,  Vienna,  EU  Agency  for 
https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2022/civic-space-2022-update#country-
Fundamental  Rights, 
related.  

GRECO (2019), Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report on Denmark on preventing corruption 
and  promoting  integrity  in  central  governments  (top  executive  functions)  and  law  enforcement 
agencies. 

GRECO (2021), Third Evaluation Round – Addendum to the second compliance report on Denmark. 

GRECO (2021), Fifth Evaluation Round – Compliance Report on Denmark on preventing corruption 
and  promoting  integrity  in  central  governments  (top  executive  functions)  and  law  enforcement 
agencies. 

Journalisten  (2022),  Government  proposals  have  raised  concerns  -  but  in  Sweden  the  state  has  no 
power  over  the  media  ombudsman  (Regeringens  forslag  har  vakt  bekymring  –  men  i  Sverige  har 
staten  ingen  magt  over  medieombudsmanden)  https://journalisten.dk/regeringens-forslag-har-vakt-
bekymring-men-i-sverige-har-staten-ingen-magt-over-medieombudsmanden/. 

Journalisten  (2022),  Plaintiffs  dropped  million-kroner  case  against  Jonas  (Sagsøgere  droppede 
millionsag  mod  Jonas,  inden  den  gik  i  gang:  ”Det  viser  andre,  at  det  ikke  har  gang  på  jord) 
https://journalisten.dk/sagsoegere-droppede-millionsag-mod-jonas-inden-den-gik-i-gang-det-viser-
andre-at-det-ikke-har-gang-paa-jord/. 

Ministry  of  Culture  (2012),  Quadrennial  periodic  report  on  measures  to  protect  and  promote  the 
diversity 
Denmark 
https://en.unesco.org/creativity/sites/creativity/files/periodic_reports/old/denmark_report_ownformat_
en_2012.pdf. 

expressions 

cultural 

of 

– 

Ministry  of  Culture  (2022),  Media  Agreement  for  2022-2025  (Medieaftale  for  2022-2025:  Den 
demokratiske 
https://kum.dk/aktuelt/nyheder/medieaftale-styrker-den-
demokratiske-samtale. 

styrkes) 

samtale 

skal 

Folketinget 

Ministry of Health (2021), Report to Parliament on the application of the Epidemics Act (Redegørelse 
til 
epidemiloven) 
https://prodstoragehoeringspo.blob.core.windows.net/4f1363f7-9a86-40a5-86a7-
e5f7a90a53a6/Redeg%C3%B8relse%20til%20Folketinget%20om%20anvendelse%20af%20epidemil
oven.pdf.  

anvendelse 

om 

af 

Ministry of Justice (2021), Whistleblowing https://www.justitsministeriet.dk/temaer/whistleblowing/. 

Ministry of Justice (2022), Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice for the 2022 Rule of Law 
Report in the context of the country visit. 

National Courts Administration (2021), Digitisation of new criminal and probate system under way 
gang) 
(Digitaliseringen 
https://www.domstol.dk/aktuelt/2021/10/digitaliseringen-af-nyt-straffe-og-skiftesystem-sat-i-
gang/#straffe%20skifte.  

skiftesystem 

straffe- 

nyt 

sat 

og 

af 

i 

National Courts Administration (2022), Annual report 2021 has been published (Årsberetning 2021 er 
udkommet) https://domstol.dk/aktuelt/2022/3/aarsberetning-2021-er-udkommet/. 

National  Court  Administration  (2022),  Even  longer  processing  times  in  2021  (Endnu  længere 
sagsbehandlingstider i 2021)  https://domstol.dk/aktuelt/2022/3/endnu-laengere-sagsbehandlingstider-
i-2021/. 

National Courts Administration (2022),  Graph of average case processing time in selected criminal 
cases in district courts 2012-2021 https://domstol.dk/media/ycrp14yf/1.png. 

23 

 
National  Courts  Administration  (2022),  Judgments  database  is  open  (Domsdatabasen  er  åben) 
https://domsdatabasen.dk/nyheder/domsdatabasen-er-aben/. 

National Courts Administration (2022), Key figures on case turnover and processing times (Nøgletal 
om sagsflow og sagsbehandlingstider) https://www.domstol.dk/media/1qbewjdg/noegletal-2021.pdf. 

Nyt  Europa  (2022),  Written  contribution  from  Nyt  Europa  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report  in  the 
context of the country visit. 

Parliamentary 
https://www.ombudsmanden.dk/findviden/fob/fob2021/. 

Ombudsman 

(2022), 

2021 

Annual 

Report 

Politiken  (2021),  Broad  majority  in  parliament  wants  to  tighten  rules  and  ban  Britt  Bager-finten 
(Bredt 
forbyde  Britt  Bager-finten) 
stramme 
https://politiken.dk/indland/art8242082/Bredt-flertal-i-Folketinget-vil-stramme-regler-og-forbyde-
Britt-Bager-finten. 

i  Folketinget 

regler 

flertal 

og 

vil 

Politiken (2022), The Liberal Party kept recipients of party support secret: ‘If the rest of us filled out 
forms from Tax or other authorities in the same way, we would not get away with it’, (Venstre holdt 
modtagere  af  partistøtte  hemmelige:  »Hvis  vi  andre  udfyldte  formularer  fra  Skat  eller  andre 
myndigheder 
det«) 
https://politiken.dk/indland/art8595893/%C2%BBHvis-vi-andre-udfyldte-formularer-fra-Skat-eller-
andre-myndigheder-p%C3%A5-samme-m%C3%A5de-s%C3%A5-ville-vi-ikke-slippe-godt-fra-
det%C2%AB.  

samme  måde, 

slippe 

godt 

ville 

ikke 

fra 

på 

så 

vi 

Politiken (2022), 'It's completely, completely wrong what's going on': 2 billion taxpayer kroner worth 
of  rapid  tests  bought  without  a  tender  (»Det  er  helt,  helt  galt,  hvad  der  foregår«: Kviktests  for  2 
milliarder  skattekroner  er  købt  uden  udbud)  https://politiken.dk/indland/art8563978/Kviktests-for-2-
milliarder-skattekroner-er-k%C3%B8bt-uden-udbud. 

Reporters without Borders – Denmark https://rsf.org/en/denmark. 

Standing Orders Committee (2021), Report concerning urgent consideration of government draft laws 
(Betænkning 
Folketinget) 
https://www.ft.dk/ripdf/samling/20201/beretningalmenart/20201_BER_15.pdf. 

indstillingomændring 

forretningsorden 

for 

og 

af 

The Mink Commission (2021), Terms of reference (Kommissorium for en granskningskommission om 
sagen om aflivning af mink) https://www.minkkommissionen.dk/da/kommissorium. 

The 
(2022), 
https://www.minkkommissionen.dk/da/afh%C3%B8ringer. 

Commission 

Mink 

Hearings 

(Afhøringer) 

The  Mink  Commission 
(Granskningskommissionen 
https://www.minkkommissionen.dk/da/nyheder/2022/06/beretningen.  

(2022),  The  commission  of  scrutiny  has  delivered 
afleveret 

har 

sin 

its 
report 
beretning) 

Transparency International (2022), Corruption Perceptions Index 2021. 

TV  2  (2022),  Mette  Frederiksen  officially  gets  a  nose  (Mette  Frederiksen  får  officielt  næse) 
https://nyheder.tv2.dk/politik/2022-07-05-mette-frederiksen-faar-officielt-naese.   

TV 2 (2022), That's why former ministers are so attractive to business (Derfor er tidligere ministre så 
attraktive  for  erhvervslivet)  https://nyheder.tv2.dk/business/2022-05-02-derfor-er-tidligere-ministre-
saa-attraktive-for-erhvervslivet. 

24 

 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Denmark 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in April 2022 with: 

  Danish Bar and Law Society  
  Danish Media Association 
  Danish Union of Journalists 
  Danish Press Council 
  Danish Institute for Human Rights 
  Dansk Ungdoms Faellesraad 
  Employee and Competence Agency  
 
Judges Association 
  Ministry of Business 
  Ministry of Culture 
  Ministry of Justice 
  National Audit Office 
  National Court Administration 
  Nyt Europa  
  Parliamentary Ombudsman 
  Standing Orders Committee of the Parliament 
  Supreme Court 
  Transparency International Denmark  

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

  Amnesty International  
  Article 19  
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe  
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom  
  European Civic Forum 
  European Federation of Journalists  
  European Partnership for Democracy 
  European Youth Forum 
  Free Press Unlimited 
  Human Rights Watch  
 
 
 
  Open Society European Policy Institute ( OSEPI) 
  Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa  
  Philea 
  Reporters Without Borders 
  Transparency International Europe 

ILGA Europe 
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) 
International Press Institute 

25